An integral part of President Obama’s renewable energy plan is wind power.

It paints a nice picture; towering fields of gigantic turbines on an open hillside or small residential windmills atop a house or barn all collecting power from the wind solving all your electricity needs.

In mass, if wind power seems to kill more birds than it produces energy, why does it remain such an integral component in Obama’s energy plan? Why does America continue to spend millions of dollars on an unstable energy source when there is no shortage of other much cheaper, reliable industries?

John Hargrove, who manages NV Energy’s Renewable Generations program in Nevada, hits the nail on the head when it comes to the main problem with wind power. He said, “There is a lot of difference in some of the generators relative to what the (manufacturers) claim. A generator can claim to put out 100 kilowatt hours, but that’s based on an assumption that there’s a certain amount of wind. If you don’t have the wind, you won’t have the output.”

Wind power is not a sustainable source of energy. It’s a good idea in theory; a way to get something for doing nothing. But it’s simply not reliable.

This problem extends beyond just Reno. Since the city’s risky “green” investment was part of a larger renewable energy grant from Obama’s stimulus, all these wasted dollars once belonged to taxpayers

PLUS, each one requires a 42' x 42' x 32' concrete foundation which has to be excavated by use of CO2 belching, heavy equipment.
Aggregate , cement, sand and lime have to be mined using more CO2 belching, heavy equipment.
200 - 10 cu.yd. 'cement' trucks are required to carry the concrete mix to the location using CO2 belching, heavy equipment.
And lastly, a series of cranes are needed to erect the 300 ft. tall behemoths utilizing - all together now - CO2 belching, heavy equipment.